St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-06-14

SyllabuS-The failure to, fill the verified
csrtlficate provided for in secs, LIS and I37,
eh. 81, Gen. Stat. 1878, does not effect the
lawful character of the corporation referred
to III those sections In. proceedings against
an 1nsolvent debtor, under sec. 2, CHI. 148,
laws of 1881, the court cannot in the order
appointing receiver vacate prior attach
ments or garnishments of the debtors prop
erty. The statute gives that effect only to
the appointment and qualification of the re-
ceiver. Order modified.
GfLFiLLAN, C. j.
Sarah E. Merrill, Mary l.. Moody end Mary U.
Wakefield. respondents VS.. Reuben S. ResS-
Ter and Hannibal Choate, appellants.
SyllabuS-An. assignee under the proviS-
sions of chapter 14S, laws 1881, may avoid
transfers and mortgages of chattleS by the
debtor aSSignor when creditors Of the aSsig-
nor could avoid them.
A clause in q lease of real estate reserying
to the lessor lien for the rent-on the goods
and chattels of the lessee placed on the de-
sired premises, to be enforced on non-pay-
ment of the mortgage by taking possession
ana sale OF the property, is in its nature and
effect a chattet mortgage, at least in equity.
and the lease comes undec- he-proYisfons of
the statute requiring chattel mortgages TO be
filed. Order reversed GsLRILLAN, C. J.
M. E. Fuller and j. A johnson, respondents.
VS.. 5. A. LanSeYfn as Sheriff, A. j. Langs-
vim, John Hansen. Andrew Hansen, L. G.
Hamre, II. c. GallickSon. f. v. Harrington
W.
Syllabus-0n a foreclosure. by advertise
ment of mortgage Oh real estate q junior
mortgage is an assign of the mortgagor
within sec. IS, ch- 81. Gen. Stat. 1873, so as
to be entitled on demand to hare his mort
gage paid out of the surplus Sc far as it will
salfhce, following Brown vs. Agricultural As
ISOLATION. 81 MINI. 5i5. An officer making
sale on foreclosure of stlch senior mortgage
and receiving the surplus knowing of such
Junior mortgagee'S right, who Immediately
pays the surplus to the moetgagoz because
liable to the junior moSsgaSee- Facts held
sufficient to sustain a finding that the officer
knew of the junior mortgages right. Order
afhrmed. GrIFILLAN,C. J.
A. II. Andrews, II. S. Andrews, T. S. Hay
den, ii. S. Hayden, G. E. Dickinson and c..
ii. Hayden, eopartness IS A. II. Andrews
&-Co., appellants, VS. School District No. 4,
Otter Tail county. respondent
Sylfabus-Currie VS.. school District 27,
" w. Rep. 922r followed TO the effect that
to bind q school DISTRICTS contract by two
trustees for purchase of supplies for the dis
trict must be authorized AZ a meetingfof the
trustees. If such supplies are received and
used for the benefit of the district under
Sslch circumstances and for such length of
time as to raise the prescription that it was
with the common consent of the, district it
viii be bound to pay for them. Facts con-
sidered and held not necessarily to raise that
presumption. Order affirmed.
GILP1LLAN, C. j.
Arthur C.. Anderson, respondent, VS.. Maxmil-
ian Schultz and Ida Schultz, appellants.
SyllabuS-Where title is to- be- made under
amortgage and a foreclosure pursuant to- the.
not make the certificate of sale proof of the
mortgage and power. Judgment affirmed.
GfLFsLLAN, G. ).
The State of Minnesota, on the relation of
William w. Churchill, reiater, VS.. e. B.
Truley and Samuel Potts, respondent.
Standardization in State vs. Critchett as
to an association being legal corporation
followed. GILFILLAN, c. J.
Chester R. Smith and Oscar L. Taylor part
ners as Smith d. Taylor, appellant. VS.. AL
mon N. Barringer ct al. respondent.
Syllabus-Upon an issue In action between
two real estate brokers as. to whether there
was an agreement between them. to divide
the commissions for - certain sale, evidence
OF a usage among real estate brokers', that
two making q sale divided the commission
equally unless a different agreement one of
them received the commissions taking, with
out consulting the other, "a note. payable to
himself for part, and. on demand by the
other for his. share, refused, notion the
ground that he had received note and not
money, but on the ground that the other was
not entitled to such share, the other man
bringing an action for his share-Nithout wait
ing for payment of the note. Order affirmed
GaLEAL.AN, c. j.
William II. Bartlett, respondent, vs. The
Northwestern CemeNtaGds Concrete Pave
ment Company, appellant.
SyliabaS-Wlfile g. corporation is not bound
by engagements made on its behalf by it's
promoters before it is organized, itmay after
il IS organized, make such. engagements it's.
contracts by adopting them. Andt this it may
do precisely as is nigh makeSimilar original
contracts, formal action ef its board Of di-
reetorS being necessary only where it would
be necessary to a similar original contract
contract between O. director ard the corpora
ton is not voidable- merely bes euse made
with director where all interested in the
corporation, officers. directors and stockhold-
the property acquired by it IS kept and used
by the corporation. OzdeF affirmed
GIIFtLLAN, G. j.
Noe Cuilevier, appellant, VS.. George Brunette
ct al.
Syllabus-A junior mortgage is not an '.as-
sign of the mOrtgagsr as the word Is used in
sec 13, oh. 81. Gen. Ssas. 1873, nor entitled
to redeem within year from the foreclosure
OF prior mortgage. Order affirmed.
GtLgsLLAN, C. j.
Ruth W. Briggs. respondent, vs.. Charles Rip
ley. appellant.
Syllabtis-D NJ Il, issued ON the same day
one to G. S, L. each conveying what is now
lot 6, block Ia, Minneapolis, and the deed
to W. gained priority by priority OF record.
Il described the lot as hos 6, block &c, in
plat never flied. aud stated oshe- facts as ele,
ments of Description which would pas ona On
inquiry such as If followed With Diligence
would show the identify Of said fos 6, block
63, with los 6, block 12g. u the plat Of Min
neapolis subsequently, flied. PfafnuF claims
by diverse mosne cODveynECss through the
deed to w, defendants By dfEersp mesoe con-
veyances through the dssd 10 G.8.H Platnt.
iff's immediate gransur, bsf1ns CONVEYING to
him, executed 10 him bond fDr deed
which was recorded, tn which the Lot was de-
scsibed rs lot g, block 123, being block go in
veyances Unloading tbs boald) except tnas To
W. appeared on 40 abstract which before
purchasing defendants procured from the
register Of deeds and relied ON. Hold that
defendant he's no righs b rely Gu the de-
scription in tho bond lbs being nO party TO
it,, either TO estop plaintiff ffd1a claiming
thai tho deed 10 w. pesHs,d sne tif5a 10 loa IS ]
the inquiIies suggested by tho fncts stated nj
that deed Judgment affirmed
GsESaIaAn C. ,.
CASES ARGUED.
The following caSeS were argued and
submitted before the supreme court yes
terday forenoon:
IL d. Chamberlain. respondent, VS..
Charles w. Slayton, aTpeilants
Michael KnOff ct al, respondents, VS.,
Nils p. Hansen e$ ID, appellants.
.. Morrill,, administrators, appellant
VS.. jerome Madden, respondent; ar